Attachment-Related Anxiety and Religiosity as Predictors of Generalized Self-Efficacy and Dispositional Hope

Background Attachment-related anxiety and avoidance have a significant impact on self-esteem, optimism, and hope. Moreover, previous studies have shown that religiosity can also be an important factor in promoting hope and emotional regulation. Objective The first aim of this study was to explore the relationship between attachment-related anxiety, attachment-related avoidance, dispositional hope, generalized self-efficacy (GSE), future time perspective (FTP) as future time opportunities (FTO), and focus on limitations (FOL). The second purpose was to detect the effect of religiosity on hope, GSE, and FTP. Design The study involved 153 Turkish participants (Females n = 81, 52.9%), between the ages of 18 and 66, who filled out the Dispositional Hope Scale, and the Experience in Close Relationship-Revised (ECR-R), FTP, and GSE inventories via a Google survey. A Pearson correlation test, multiple linear regression analysis, and an independent t-test were computed. Results Attachment-related anxiety was inversely related to dispositional hope and GSE, while it was positively associated with FOL. Attachment-related avoidance was negatively related to dispositional hope and FTO, whereas it was positively correlated with FOL. FTO was positively correlated with GSE and dispositional hope. Religious participants had a higher level of dispositional hope and GSE than non-religious participants. A lower level of attachment-related anxiety and religiosity was associated with a higher level of GSE and hope. Females showed a higher level of makeup agency than men, whereas the men reported a higher level of FOL than the women. Conclusion This study concluded that both attachment-related anxiety and religiosity were predictors of hope and GSE. Gender differences played a significant role in FOL and make-up agency. Moreover, it was found that attachment-related anxiety and avoidance have different functions in GSE and FTO.

Introduction well-being. Promoting a high level of self-esteem may elevate the level of mental wellbeing, personality traits, and secure attachment style (Marrero-Quevedo et al., 2019). Th erefore, it should be highlighted that self-esteem may control attachment styles.
Th e same eff ect is observed in adulthood. People with a higher level of attachment-related anxiety and avoidance report a lower level of self-effi cacy. Having a lower level of attachment-related anxiety and avoidance increases the level of selfeffi cacy. Th ose people with a lower level of attachment-related anxiety and avoidance with a higher level of self-effi cacy show a higher level of mental well-being (Bender & Ingram, 2018). In addition to attachment styles, hope has a signifi cant impact on selfeffi cacy. Hope leads people to have a higher level of self-effi cacy (O'Sullivan, 2011).
If individuals are hopeful with a high level of GSE, they are more likely to have an optimistic view of the future. It has been suggested that a future time perspective is positively related to GSE. When people have a higher level of self-effi cacy, they show an optimistic orientation toward the future (Zebardast et al., 2011). Th us, it should be concluded that hope, and a lower level of attachment-related anxiety and avoidance, promote GSE.

Future Time Perspective (FTP)
Future time perspective (FTP) theory examines a person's expectations about the future, goals, and perception of the world (Lang & Cartensen, 2002). A previous study has found that when people had a higher level of FTP, they were more likely to have a higher level of consciousness and self-esteem (Akirmak, 2019). Th e FTP is a cognitive process that shapes how people evaluate their lives. In this case, it has similar features to hope. Hope aff ects both FTP and life satisfaction (Dwivedi & Rastogi, 2016).
It can be said that hope can control FTP and induce psychological well-being. If people perform at a higher level of FTP, their levels of aggression, depression, and anxiety decrease. Furthermore, those people with a higher level of FTP can manage their impulsivity (Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999). Hence, it can be determined that FTP plays an important role in regulating emotions and cognitive behavior.
Attachment styles play an important role in emotional and cognitive functions. Attachment styles during childhood are vitally important in determining which strategies children will have in the future (Laghi et al., 2009). Hence, it can be said that attachment styles in adulthood will have a signifi cant eff ect on FTP.

Religiosity
Attachment styles are related to religiosity values. One study has reported that people who adhered to religious traditions tended to have an avoidant attachment style, while the anxious attachment style was not related to religious rituals (Cobb, 2017).
Religiosity plays a crucial role in creating mental well-being and cognitive skills. Religious people are more hopeful than non-religious individuals (Hasson-Ohayon et al., 2009). Th e positive eff ect of religiosity is observed in their level of happiness. Religious participants have been found to be more likely to have a higher level of happiness than non-religious ones (Abdel-Khalek & Lester, 2017).
Th is result could be due to the fact that religious people are integrated into a group. As individuals engage in church activities, their life satisfaction increases (Leondari & Gialamas, 2009). Th e integration with the group helps religious individuals to have good coping strategies for their emotional regulation (Vishkin et al., 2016). When religious people are faced with stressful events, they are better at fi nding new coping strategies to deal with them than non-religious people (Agbaria, 2021). Th erefore, those cognitive and emotional advances may aid in helping for religious people to have higher levels of hope and GSE.
In conclusion, this study had two aims. Th e fi rst was to explore the relationship between attachment-related avoidance and anxiety with dispositional hope, GSE, and FTP. Th e second was to analyze the eff ect of religiosity on hope, GSE, and FTP.
Th ere were two research questions: 1. What is the relationship between dispositional hope, GSE, FTP, and attachment styles? 2. Does religiosity influence the level of hope, GSE, and FTP?

Participants and Design
Th e study was carried out between December 21, 2020 and January 31, 2021 in Turkey. Participants were contacted through social media portals. Th ere were 153 Turkish participants (Females N = 81, 52.9%). Th e mean age of the participants was 34.76 (SD = 13; range 18-66 years). Th e majority of participants reported that "I am religious" (n = 103, 67.3%). Th e majority of the participants had secure and preoccupied attachment styles (Secure n = 57, 37.3%; Preoccupied n = 57, 37.3%). Most of the participants had a university degree (n = 111, 72.5%). Detailed information on the sample is shown in Table 1. Th e participants fi lled out the Dispositional Hope Scale, the Generalized Self-effi cacy Scale, the Future Time Perspective scale, and the Experience in Close Relationships scale via a Google form. Individuals did not gain any benefi t by participating in the study. Participants had to be older than 18 years old to join. Eight participants were excluded due to their extreme outlier scores.

Procedure
Dispositional Hope Scale Th e Dispositional Hope Scale (Snyder et al., 1991) measures how people fi nd ways to cope with stress, to what extent they are goal-oriented, and how they handle problems. Th e scale has three time perspectives: past, future, and present. Th e hope scale has two components: 1) the make-up of the person's agency (goal-directed energy) and 2) the person's make-up pathway to organize strategies toward goals. In the current study, the Turkish version of the dispositional hope scale (Tarhan & Bacanli, 2015) was used. Th e make-up of agency sub-scale had four statements ranging from the past to current times regarding the perception of accomplishment (e.g., "I have been pretty successful in life"). Th e make-up pathway sub-scale had four statements consisting of descriptions about handling problems in diffi cult situations (e.g., "I can think of many ways to get out of a jam"). Th e scale ranged from "1 = Defi nitely False" to "8 = Defi nitely True. " Higher scores indicated a higher level of hope.
In the current study, the dispositional hope scale showed a good internal consistency reliability score (McDonald Omega's coeffi cient = .81). Both of the two subscales showed an acceptable reliability score, and the internal reliability score for the make-up pathway sub-scale (McDonald Omega's coeffi cient = .76), and for the makeup agency sub-scale (McDonald Omega's coeffi cient = .75).

Generalized Self-Effi cacy Scale (GSE)
Th e generalized self-effi cacy scale (GSE) (Jerusalem & Schwarzer, 1995) analyzes the perception of self-effi cacy in terms of solving problems in the face of unexpected issues. It includes 10 statements including self-beliefs, strategies, and optimism (e.g., "If I am in trouble, I can usually think of a solution"). In the current study, the Turkish version of the GSE (Erci, 2005) was used. Th e scale ranged from "1= Not at all True" to "4 = Exactly True. " Th e scale had a good internal reliability score (McDonald Omega's coeffi cient = .89).

Future Time Perspective Scale (FTP)
Th e Future Time Perspective scale (Cartensen & Lang, 1996) emphasizes people's perceptions and goals towards their prospects in the future. Th e scale consists of 10 statements about people's thoughts, possibilities, and expectations regarding their future. Th e scale is divided into two categories: 1) future time opportunities (FTO) with seven statements (e.g., "I expect that I will set many new goals in the future"), and 2) focus on limitations (FOL), which includes three descriptions regarding the perception of limited prospects the future (e.g., "Th ere are only limited possibilities in my future").

Th e Experience in Close Relationships -Revised Questionnaire (ECR-R)
Th e revised version of the Experience in Close Relationships scale (Fraley et al., 2000) was used to determine the anxious and avoidant attachment styles in the adult population. Th e questionnaire includes 36 questions exploring attachment-related anxiety and avoidance. Th e attachment-related anxiety scale measures to what extent a person is sensitive to abandonment, fear of being unloved, and the level of trust in the romantic relationship (e.g., "I oft en worry that my partner doesn't really love me").
Th e attachment-related avoidance sub-scale is defi ned as having a close, intimate, safe, comfortable relationship with partners, and the quality of communication between partners (e.g., "I fi nd it easy to depend on romantic partners"). Th e Turkish version of the Experience in Close Relationships scale (Selçuk et al., 2005) was used in the current study. Th e scale ranged from "1 = Strongly Disagree" to "7 = Strongly Agree. " Both of the sub-scales showed high internal consistency scores. For anxious attachment, the reliability score (McDonald's Omega's coeffi cient) was .85); for the avoidance attachment, that coeffi cient was also .85.

Data Analysis
Th e data was computed by SPSS, version 26. Skewness, kurtosis, and standardized scores of skewness and kurtosis were measured to determine whether the study was normally distributed.
Z-scores between -3.29 and +3.29 in the moderate sample between 50 <n< 300 qualify results as parametric (Kim, 2013). In this study, the z-scores of all of the subscales ranged between -3.29 and +3.29. Pearson's correlation test was used to analyze the relationship between dispositional hope, FTP, GSE, and adult attachment styles. An independent t-test was computed to measure the eff ects of gender and religiosity on FTP, GSE, and dispositional hope. Religiosity, attachment styles, and gender were chosen as independent variables, while the dispositional hope scale, GSE, and FTP were dependent variables.
Moreover, the classifi cation of attachment styles as secure, preoccupied, fearful, and dismissive was measured by the median of attachment-related anxiety and avoidance. In this case, the eff ect of attachment styles on GSE, FTP, and hope was explored using One-Way ANOVA.
Multiple linear regression analyses were computed to explore the eff ects of religiosity and attachment styles on FTP, GSE, and hope. Th e internal consistency reliability scores of the scales were computed using the method of McDonald's Omega coeffi cient analysis (Flora, 2020).
In addition, G*Power (Faul et al., 2020) was used to examine whether the study had a large enough sample power size. Th e type of the power was the bivariate correlation model of the post hoc two tails for Pearson's correlation test, while in the fi xed model, R2 deviation from zero was measured to reveal the multiple linear regression sample size.
Attachment Th e results suggested that religious people signifi cantly demonstrate a higher level of hope than non-religious individuals. Th e hope score for people who were religious was M = 53.00, SD = 7.00), as opposed to the hope score for non-religious participants (M = 50.00, SD = 7.70); conditions: t (159) =2.20, p = .02).
Moreover, religious people showed a higher level of GSE than non-religious individuals. Th e GSE scores for religious people were M = 31.00, SD = 5.30, while those for non-religious participants were M = 28.50, SD = 7.70; conditions; t (151) = 2.20, p = .03.
Th e results indicate that women have a signifi cantly higher level of make-up agency than men. Th e mean score for women was M = 25.3, SD = 4.09, while that for men was M = 23.8, SD = 4.73); conditions; t (151) = 2.07, p = .04).

Discussion
Th is study had two main objectives. Th e fi rst one was to detect the relationship between attachment-related dimensions, hope, GSE, and FTP. Th e second one was to analyze the eff ects of religiosity on FTP, GSE, and hope.
Previous fi ndings indicated that when individuals have a higher level of hope, they tend to have a higher score on GSE (Feldman & Kubota, 2015). Both self-effi cacy and hope promote mental health (Liu et al., 2018). In addition, a previous study sug-gested that GSE and hope are strongly related to each other (r = .98) and are inhibitors of a higher level of depression (D'Souza et al., 2020). Moreover, hope adjusts FTP (Adelabu, 2008). Th e current study found that hope and GSE are strongly related to each other (r = .73), and both are associated with FTO, while they are not correlated with FOL. Hence, it should be highlighted that both hope and GSE might promote a positive orientation toward the future.
Another variable that is related to mental well-being and hope is religiosity. Being religious has a positive infl uence on hope and mental health (Al Eid et al., 2021). Th is study found that religiosity has a signifi cant impact on GSE and hope. When participants report that they are religious, they are more likely to have a higher level of hope and GSE than non-religious participants.
On the other hand, having a higher level of attachment-related anxiety and avoidance distorts hope (Shorey et al., 2003). Nevertheless, attachment to God plays an important role in the regulation of hope and self-esteem (Ren, 2020). When people are religious, their level of hope increases (Pahlevan Sharif et al., 2021). Not just attachment to God, but also adult attachment styles regulate self-effi cacy (Bender & Ingram, 2018). Securely attached participants exhibited a higher level of hope than insecurely attached individuals (Demirtaş, 2019). Attachment-related anxiety was inversely related to hope (Blake & Norton, 2014). In the current study, both attachment-related anxiety and irreligiosity were inversely related to GSE and hope. It should be noted that those variables aff ect hope more than GSE does.
A systematic review found that mental well-being and goal-oriented behaviors were related to FTP (Kooij et al., 2018). In the current study, FTP was divided into FTO and FOL. FTO is a protective element against depression symptoms, while FOL is related to the stress system. However, FOL is not associated with subjective mental health (Kozik et al., 2015). A study on a Turkish sample showed that FOL was negatively associated with psychological and physical health (Soylu & Ozekes, 2019).
Furthermore, since FTP refers to a thinking orientation toward the future. it is related to the individual's self-perception. Individuals with a high level of self-effi cacy have a higher level of FTP (Dutt & Wahl, 2019).
Moreover, a secure attachment style controls GSE (Bender & Ingram, 2018). Th erefore, it can be hypothesized that attachment-related anxiety and avoidance are negatively associated with GSE and FTP. Nevertheless, in this case, the role of attachment-related avoidance should be highlighted. Individuals with a higher level of attachment-related avoidance are autonomous and self-reliant. Th ey might feel better when they are alone (Wardecker et al., 2020). In this case, the current study revealed that attachment-related anxiety was negatively associated with dispositional hope and GSE, and it was positively correlated with FOL. However, attachment-related anxiety was not signifi cantly correlated with FTO. On the other hand, attachmentrelated avoidance was negatively related to hope and FTO but positively correlated with FOL. However, attachment-related avoidance was not signifi cantly associated with GSE. Th us, it can be concluded that attachment-related anxiety and avoidance have diff erent functions on GSE and FTO. Attachment-related avoidance is a style related to FTO, whereas attachment-related anxiety is associated with GSE.
When attachment styles were classifi ed into secure, dismissive, preoccupied, and fearful groups, we found that participants with fearful attachment styles were prone to score lower on hope, GSE, FTO, and higher score on FOL. Having a secure relationship promotes a higher level of hope, GSE, and a lower level of FOL. Nevertheless, participants with dismissive and preoccupied attachment styles were more likely to have a higher level of FTO that should be detected in the future.
A previous study showed that the level of hope was higher in men than in women (Naik & Yadav, 2017). Furthermore, a recent study aft er the pandemic suggested that women were more vulnerable to generalized anxiety disorder and stress (Chima et al., 2022). However, the current study indicated that males were more likely to feel that their future was limited and were less likely to engage in goal-directed behavior than the female participants. Th erefore, cultural factors should be taken into account in examining the eff ects of gender.

Conclusion
Th is study has several conclusions. Th e fi rst is that attachment-related anxiety is positively associated with FOL and inversely correlated with dispositional hope and GSE. Attachment-related avoidance is positively related to FOL and negatively associated with dispositional hope and FTO. Attachment-related avoidance is not signifi cantly associated with GSE and the make-up pathway. Dispositional hope is positively related to FTO and GSE, while it is not signifi cantly correlated with FOL. GSE is positively correlated with FTO, while it is not correlated with FOL.
Th e second major conclusion is that religiosity has a signifi cant impact on hope and GSE. Religious individuals have a higher level of dispositional hope and GSE than non-religious people.
Th e third fi nding is that women perform a higher level of makeup agency than men, whereas men have a higher level of FOL than women.
Th e fourth is that both irreligious and attachment-related anxiety are negatively predicted to be related to GSE and dispositional hope.
Th e fi ft h is that attachment-related anxiety and avoidance are positively predicted to be related to FOL.
Sixth, when attachment styles are divided into categories, it can be concluded that having a secure attachment style is advantageous for hope, GSE, FOL, and dispositional hope, whereas a fearful attachment style impairs those skills. It should be noted that individuals with a dismissive and preoccupied attachment style have a higher level of hope than securely attached participants, which should be considered in the future.

Limitations
Th e present study had several limitations. First, the levels of hope, GSE, FTP, and attachment styles might have been sensitive to the outbreak of COVID. For instance, it was found that the level of attachment-related anxiety and avoidance was higher than in the study conducted in 2019 in Turkey (Koç et al., 2019). Previous studies demonstrated that the mental well-being of people deteriorated during the COVID-19 pandemic, and that age is a signifi cant predictor of mental well-being (O'Connor, et al., 2020).
Second, the study did not focus on any specifi c age group, and age diff erences might be an important factor in these scores. Th ird, the study was based on a Turkish sample; it would be interesting to generalize these scores to other cultures. Th e fourth limitation was the sample size. Th e correlation between attachment-related anxiety and FTO (.56) and the relationship between attachment-related avoidance and dispositional hope (.66) had a lower sample size than 80%. Moreover, the study was a cohort study so that the results indicated the relationship between variables rather than determining causal eff ects.
A specifi c religious behavioral scale might be used in the future rather than simply asking the binary question, Are you religious or not? Nevertheless, the present study was the fi rst study to examine the relationship between religiosity, FTP, attachment styles, and dispositional hope in a Turkish sample.

Ethics Statement
Th is study did not present any risk for the participants. Th erefore, no special ethical approval was required. However, all subjects gave their informed consent for inclusion before they participated. Participation in the study was entirely voluntary.

Author Contributions
Th e idea of the article, the theory, the introduction, the statistical data, and the results were all conceived, carried out, and written by Emrullah Ecer.

Confl ict of Interest
Th e author declares no confl ict of interest